Roland Illig wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like the pattern for patch filenames to be changed. In general
> it is the shell pattern "patch-*", but there are two occurrences of the
> AWK pattern "patch-[A-Za-z0-9]+". I would like to have the underscore
> ("_") included in the allowed letters.
>
> With this change we could name the patch files after the files they
> patch ("patch-src_inode_c"), not with some arbitrarily chosen number
> ("patch-af").
I'll summarize the discussion we had so far:
Having the underscore character in the patch name pattern:
- I (Roland) would like it
(mainly to automatize the creation of patches)
- lukem thought this idea to be a good one
Naming scheme for patch files:
- grant would rather name the patches by function
So we have two different discussion points here. Are there any opinions
against allowing the underscore in patch file names? If not, I would
like this change to happen, as I already have many packages that would
immediately build under Linux if only the patch names were allowed. :)
The other point (the naming scheme) is important, too. I noticed that
with encoding the file name as the patch name the order in which the
patches are applied only depends on the file name, not on the package
maintainer's opinion. There might be problems with dependent files, such
as ./configure and ./configure.ac, as well as lex and yacc files.
These alternatives came to my mind:
- only patching the relevant file (./configure) and letting
./configure.ac untouched
This should cause no problems unless the package rebuilds ./configure
during the build.
- prioritizing the patches depending on the name
(especially the extension)
This will cause extra time on the patch process, so it might be
less acceptable.
Any comments?
Roland